Automatic language selection for improving text accuracy

ABSTRACT

A method, and a handheld electronic device that implements the method, for selecting a number of languages used by a text disambiguation function executed by an electronic device during a text entry session. The method comprises determining a context for the text entry session, and responsive to the determining, selecting at least some of the number of languages used by the text disambiguation function during the text entry session.

BACKGROUND

1. Field of the Invention

The invention relates generally to handheld electronic devices and, moreparticularly, to a handheld electronic device executing an applicationwhich employs a keystroke interpretation system. The invention furtherrelates to methods of automatically selecting the language that thekeystroke interpretation system utilizes.

2. Background Information

Numerous types of handheld electronic devices are known. Examples ofsuch handheld electronic devices include, for instance, personal dataassistants (PDAs), handheld computers, two-way pagers, cellulartelephones, and the like. Many handheld electronic devices also featurewireless communication capability, although many such handheldelectronic devices are stand-alone devices that are functional withoutcommunication with other devices.

Such handheld electronic devices are generally intended to be portable,and thus are of a relatively compact configuration in which keys andother input structures often perform multiple functions under certaincircumstances or may otherwise have multiple aspects or featuresassigned thereto. With advances in technology, handheld electronicdevices are built to have progressively smaller form factors yet haveprogressively greater numbers of applications and features residentthereon. As a practical matter, the keys of a keypad can only be reducedto a certain small size before the keys become increasingly unusable. Inorder to enable text entry, however, a keypad must be capable ofentering all twenty-six letters of the Latin alphabet, for instance, aswell as appropriate punctuation and other symbols.

One way of providing numerous letters in a small space has been toprovide a “reduced keyboard” in which multiple letters, symbols, digits,and the like, are assigned to any given key. For example, a touch-tonetelephone includes a reduced keyboard by providing twelve keys, of whichten have digits thereon, and of these ten keys, eight have Latin lettersand symbols assigned thereto. For instance, one of the keys includes thedigit “2” as well as the letters “A”, “B”, and “C”. Since a singleactuation of such a key potentially could be intended by the user torefer to any of the letters “A”, “B”, and “C”, and potentially couldalso be intended to refer to the digit “2”, the input (by actuation ofthe key) generally is an ambiguous input and is in need of some type ofdisambiguation in order to be useful for text entry purposes. Otherknown reduced keyboards have included other arrangements of keys,letters, symbols, digits, and the like.

In order to enable a user to make use of the multiple letters, digits,and the like on any given key in an ambiguous keyboard, numerouskeystroke interpretation systems have been provided. For instance, a“multi-tap” system allows a user to substantially unambiguously specifya particular character on a key by pressing the same key a number oftimes equivalent to the position of the desired character on the key.For example, on the aforementioned telephone key that includes theletters “ABC”, if the user desires to specify the letter “C”, the userwill press the key three times.

Another exemplary keystroke interpretation system would include keychording, of which various types exist. For instance, a particularcharacter can be entered by pressing two keys in succession or bypressing and holding a first key while pressing a second key. Stillanother exemplary keystroke interpretation system would be a“press-and-hold/press-and-release” interpretation function in which agiven key provides a first result if the key is pressed and immediatelyreleased, and provides a second result if the key is pressed and heldfor a short period of time.

Another keystroke interpretation system that has been employed is asoftware-based text disambiguation function. In such a system, a usertypically presses keys to which one or more characters have beenassigned, generally pressing each key one time for each desired letter,and the disambiguation software attempts to determine the intendedinput. Numerous such systems have been proposed. One example of such asystem is disclosed in commonly owned U.S. patent application Ser. No.10/931,281, entitled “Handheld Electronic Device With TextDisambiguation,” the disclosure of which is incorporated herein byreference.

As will be appreciated, certain of the keystroke interpretation systemsdescribed above (“multi-tap,” chording, and“press-and-hold/press-and-release”) rely on the number of times that akey is actuated, the number of keys that are actuated, and/or how longthat a key remains actuated, each of which constitute a non-ambiguouskey actuation sequence, to ascertain, with certainty, the intendedinput. Such systems do not attempt to determine an intended input usingan ambiguous input like software-based text disambiguation functionsystems do. Such keystroke interpretation systems (“multi-tap,”chording, and “press-and-hold/press-and-release”) shall be referred toherein as “determinative keystroke interpretation systems.”

Handheld electronic devices that incorporate a probabilistic keystrokeinterpretation system such as a software-based text disambiguationfunction system may encounter additional difficulty during text entry indifferent languages. In an email application, for example, a user maysend a first message to all French speaking recipients in French and asubsequent message to all German speaking recipients in German. Thesystem may operate in an undesirable fashion because it does not knowwhether a given ambiguous input is intended to represent a French wordor a German word.

Thus, a need exists for a handheld electronic device which employs akeystroke interpretation system and which facilitates text entry inmultiple languages.

SUMMARY

One aspect of the disclosure relates to a method for selecting a numberof languages used by a text disambiguation function executed by anelectronic device during a text entry session. The method comprisesdetermining a context for the text entry session, and responsive to thedetermining, selecting at least some of the number of languages used bythe text disambiguation function during the text entry session.

Another aspect of the disclosure relates to a method of choosing alanguage to be used by a text disambiguation function executed by ahandheld electronic device, the handheld electronic device beingoperable to send and receive messages from one or more recipients. Themethod comprises determining that a message being drafted is an originalmessage and selecting a language in response to one or more languagetags associated with at least some of the one or more recipients.

Another aspect of the disclosure relates to a method of choosing alanguage to be used by a text disambiguation function executed by ahandheld electronic device, the handheld electronic device beingoperable to send and receive messages from one or more recipients. Themethod comprises determining that a message being drafted is a derivedmessage and selecting the language of an original message from which thederived message depends.

Another aspect of the disclosure relates to a handheld electronic devicewhich comprises a reduced keyboard having a plurality of keys, aprocessor, and a memory storing a plurality of routines executable bythe processor, wherein a first one or more of the routines implements akeystroke interpretation system having a text disambiguation function,and wherein a second one or more of the routines is adapted to determinea context for a text entry session and responsive to the context, selectat least some of the number of languages used by the text disambiguationfunction during the text entry session.

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS

A full understanding of the invention can be gained from the followingDescription of the Preferred Embodiments when read in conjunction withthe accompanying drawings in which:

FIG. 1 is a front view of an improved handheld electronic device.

FIG. 2 is a block diagram of the handheld electronic device of FIG. 1.

FIG. 3-5 are exemplary contents of result registers produced by aroutine executed by the handheld electronic device shown in FIGS. 1 and2.

FIG. 6 is a flowchart depicting a routine executed by the processor ofthe handheld electronic device of FIGS. 1 and 2.

FIG. 7 is a flowchart illustrating a more detailed schematic of aportion of the routine depicted in FIG. 6 according to one embodiment.

FIG. 8 is a flowchart, similar to FIG. 7, but depicting a portion of theroutine depicted in FIG. 6 according to another embodiment.

FIGS. 9 and 10 are flowcharts depicting a routine executed by theprocessor of the handheld electronic device of FIGS. 1 and 2.

FIG. 11 is an exemplary display of the handheld device of FIG. 1.

Similar numerals refer to similar parts throughout the specification.

DESCRIPTION OF THE PREFERRED EMBODIMENTS

An improved handheld electronic device 4 is indicated generally in FIG.1 and is depicted schematically in FIG. 2. The exemplary handheldelectronic device 4 includes a housing 6 upon which are disposed aprocessor unit that includes an input apparatus 8, an output apparatus12, a processor 16, and a memory 20. The processor 16 may be, forinstance, and without limitation, a microprocessor (μP) and isresponsive to inputs from the input apparatus 8 and provides outputsignals to the output apparatus 12. The processor 16 also interfaceswith the memory 20. Examples of handheld electronic devices are includedin U.S. Pat. Nos. 6,452,588 and 6,489,950, the disclosures of which areincorporated by reference herein.

As can be understood from FIG. 1, the input apparatus 8 includes akeypad 24 and a thumbwheel 32. As will be described in greater detailbelow, the keypad 24 is in the exemplary form of a reduced QWERTYkeyboard including a plurality of keys 28 that serve as input members.It is noted, however, that the keypad 24 may be of other reducedconfigurations, such as a reduced AZERTY keyboard, a reduced QWERTZkeyboard, or other keyboard arrangement, whether presently known orunknown. In this regard, the expression “reduced” and variationsthereof, in the context of a keyboard, such as a keypad or otherarrangement of input members, shall refer broadly to an arrangement inwhich at least one of the input members has assigned thereto a pluralityof characters within a given set, such as a plurality of letters, forexample, in the set of Latin letters, for example, thereby renderingambiguous an intended result of an actuation of the at least one of theinput members.

In this regard, and as will be set forth below in greater detail, thesystem architecture of the handheld electronic device 4 advantageouslyis organized to be operable independent of the specific layout of thekeypad 24. Accordingly, the system architecture of the handheldelectronic device 4 can be employed in conjunction with virtually anykeypad layout substantially without requiring any meaningful change inthe system architecture.

The keys 28 are disposed on a front face of the housing 6, and thethumbwheel 32 is disposed at a side of the housing 6. The thumbwheel 32can serve as another input member and is both rotatable, as is indicatedby the arrow 34, to provide input to the processor 16, and also can bepressed in a direction generally toward the housing 6, as is indicatedby the arrow 38, to provide another input to the processor 16.

Among the keys 28 of the keypad 24 are a <NEXT> key 40 and an <ENTER>key 44. The <NEXT> key 40 can be pressed to provide a selection input tothe processor 16 and provides substantially the same selection input asis provided by a rotational input of the thumbwheel 32. Since the <NEXT>key 40 is provided adjacent a number of the other keys 28 of the keypad24, the user can provide a selection input to the processor 16substantially without moving the user's hands away from the keypad 24during a text entry operation.

As can further be seen in FIG. 1, many of the keys 28 include a numberof characters 48 disposed thereon. As employed herein, the expression “anumber of” and variations thereof shall refer broadly to any quantity,including a quantity of one. In the exemplary depiction of the keypad24, many of the keys 28 include two or more characters, such asincluding a first character 52 and a second character 56 assignedthereto. It is understood that the expression “characters” shall broadlybe construed to include letters, digits, symbols and the like and canadditionally include ideographic characters, components thereof, otherlinguistic elements, and the like. The keys 28 having one or morecharacters 48 or other linguistic elements can be considered to belinguistic input members.

One of the keys 28 of the keypad 24 includes as the characters 48thereof the letters “Q” and “W”, and an adjacent key 28 includes as thecharacters 48 thereof the letters “E” and “R”. It can be seen that thearrangement of the characters 48 on the keys 28 of the keypad 24 isgenerally of a QWERTY arrangement, albeit with many of the keys 28including two of the characters 48.

The memory 20, depicted schematically in FIG. 2, can be any of a varietyof types of internal and/or external storage media such as, withoutlimitation, RAM, ROM, EPROM(s), EEPROM(s), and the like that provide astorage register for data storage such as in the fashion of an internalstorage area of a computer, and can be volatile memory or nonvolatilememory. The memory 20 additionally includes a number of routinesdepicted generally with the numeral 22 for the processing of data. Theroutines 22 can be in any of a variety of forms such as, withoutlimitation, software, firmware, and the like. The routines 22 include asoftware-based text disambiguation function (e.g., “disambiguationsoftware”) as described elsewhere herein as an application, as well asother routines.

As described in greater detail herein, FIG. 1 shows an exemplary output64 being depicted on the display 60 that includes a text component 68and a variant component 72. The variant component 72 includes a defaultportion 76 and a variant portion 80. The contents of the default portion76 are also output as the text component 68. The variant component 72represents a list of possible intended inputs (in the form of a numberof character strings or combinations) as generated by the disambiguationsoftware. A user may select one of the items listed in the variantcomponent 72 (i.e., either the default portion 76 or one of items of thevariant portion 80) for inclusion in the final text component 68.Methods of selecting a specific variant component 72 for inclusion inthe final text component 68 are discussed in commonly owned U.S. patentapplication Ser. No. 11/074,571 the disclosure of which is incorporatedby reference herein.

In response to the user's input, the disambiguation software generatesthe variant component 72. The variant component 72 generated isdependent upon the language designated for the disambiguation software.In the current embodiment, the disambiguation software employs datastructures containing word objects that are generally organized in datatables according to the first two letters of the word object. Forinstance, the data table associated with the prefix “CO” would includeall of the words such as “CODE”, “COIN”, “COMMUNICATION”, and the like.Depending upon the quantity of word objects within any given data table,the data table may additionally include sub-data tables within whichword objects are organized by prefixes that are three characters or morein length.

Each word object is associated with a frequency object. Accordingly,when a prefix object is sought to be used to identify a correspondingword object, and for instance the instant prefix object is “AP”, the“AP” data table will be consulted. Since all of the word objects in the“AP” data table will correspond with the prefix object “AP”, the wordobject in the “AP” data table with which is associated a frequencyobject having a frequency value relatively higher than any of the otherfrequency objects in the “AP” data table is identified. The identifiedword object and the associated frequency object are then stored in aresult register that serves as a result of the various comparisons ofthe generated prefix objects with the contents of the memory 20.“Frequency value” as used herein generally refers to a metric thatindicates how likely a specific word is to be used according to commonusage for a particular language. The frequency value for the specificword may be modified, for example, depending upon the specific usagepatterns for that word as learned by the disambiguation software.

In the current embodiment, multiple data structures may be used, forexample, to separate word objects according to language. Word objectsfound in an English language dictionary and their associated frequencyobjects may be stored in first data structure, words objects found in aFrench language dictionary and their associated frequency objects may bestored in second data structure; words objects found in a Germanlanguage dictionary and their associated frequency objects may be storedin another data structure, etc. Accordingly, the data table associatedwith the prefix “CO” for the English language dictionary data structuremay include different word objects than the data table associated withthe prefix “CO” for the French language dictionary data structure.

Furthermore, although an identical word object may exist in more thatone data structure, the frequency object associated therewith may bedifferent for each data structure. For example, the word object “toast”may exist in both the English and French language dictionary datastructures, but the word object “toast” located in the English languagedictionary data structure may be associated with a frequency objecthaving a higher frequency value than the word object “toast” located inthe French language dictionary data structure.

When a particular language is designated for the disambiguationsoftware, results in that language are preferred over results from otherlanguages. For example if English is designated, the disambiguationsoftware will search for word objects in the data structure containingwords found in the English language dictionary before searching for wordobjects in the data structures containing words found in the French andGerman dictionaries. Alternatively, the disambiguation software may onlysearch word objects contained within the data structures of thedesignated language dictionary. Still alternatively, the disambiguationsoftware may search for word objects in all data structures and outputthe results from the designated language as results that are preferredover results in other languages.

FIG. 3, for example, illustrates the contents of a results register 50Athat may be provided when the user attempts to type the word “today”with English designated for the disambiguation software. Morespecifically, when the user depresses the “TY”, “OP”, and “DF” keys insequence, the disambiguation software will search for word objectscontained in the English language data tables associated with theprefixes “TOD”, “TOF”, “TPD”, “TPF”, “YOD”, “YOF”, “YPD”, and “YPF”. Theword objects that correspond with the prefixes “TOD”, “TOF”, “TPD”,“TPF”, “YOD”, “YOF”, “YPD”, and “YPF” and which are associated withfrequency objects having a relatively higher frequency values areidentified. The identified word objects and the frequency value of theirassociated frequency objects are then stored in the result register 50A.As illustrated in FIG. 3, for example, the word objects “toddler”,“today”, “tofu”, “toddy” “toffee”, and “yodel” may be stored in theresult register 50A.

FIG. 4, however, illustrates the contents of a results register 50B thatmay be provided when the user attempts to type the equivalent word inFrench (i.e., “aujourd'hui”) while English remains designated for thedisambiguation software. More specifically, when the user depresses the“AS”, “UI”, and “JK” keys in sequence, the disambiguation software maysearch only for word objects contained in the English language datatables associated with the prefixes “AUJ”, “AUK”, “AU”, “AIK”, “SUJ”,“SUK”, “SIJ”, and “SIK”. The word objects that correspond with theprefixes “AUJ”, “AUK”, “AIJ”, “AIK”, “SUJ”, “SUK”, “SIJ”, and “SIK” andwhich are associated with frequency objects having a relatively higherfrequency values are identified. The identified word objects and thefrequency value of their associated frequency objects are then stored inthe result register 50B. As illustrated in FIG. 4, for example, the wordobjects “auk”, “sukiyaki”, and “Sikh” may be stored in the resultregister 50B. As seen in FIG. 4, the word objects stored in resultregister 50B do not include the desired French word “aujourd'hui”.

In contrast if French is designated, when the user depresses the “AS”,“UI”, and “JK” keys in sequence, the disambiguation software will searchfor word objects contained in the French language data tables associatedwith the prefixes “AUJ”, “AUK”, “AIJ”, “AIK”, “SUJ”, “SUK”, “SIJ”, and“SIK”. The word objects that correspond with the prefixes “AUJ”, “AUK”,“AIJ”, “AIK”, “SUJ”, “SUK”, “SIJ”, and “SIK”, that are stored in theFrench language data tables, and which are associated with frequencyobjects having a relatively higher frequency values are identified andstored in the result register 50C as illustrated in FIG. 5. For example,the word objects “aujourd'hui” and “sujet” may be stored in the resultregister 50C. As seen in FIG. 5, the word objects stored in resultregister 50C include the desired French word “aujourd'hui”.

In one embodiment, handheld electronic device 4 includes a number ofroutines (for example, routine 120 represented schematically in FIG. 6and routine 200 represented schematically in FIG. 9) stored in memory 20and executable by processor 16, for automatically selecting the languagepreferred by the disambiguation software. Routine 120, for example, maybe initiated in response to user input related to drafting a message.The user input may include, for example, entry of an email address forone or more recipients, selecting the “reply” option for a previouslyreceived message, and/or selecting the “forward” option for a previouslywritten/received message.

Referring now to FIG. 6, a determination is made at operation 122 as towhether the user input relates to an original message. An “originalmessage” generally refers to a message which does not depend fromanother message (e.g., the first message in message thread). An“original message” may also refer to a message from which the currentmessage (i.e., the message being drafted) depends. A “derived message”generally refers to a message which depends from a previous message inthe message thread (e.g., an original message). For example, the messagebeing drafted by a user may be a reply to another message that waspreviously received by the user. In this example, the message previouslyreceived by the user is an “original message” and the reply messagebeing drafted by the user is a “derived message”.

If it is determined in operation 122 that the user input relates todrafting an original message, operational control passes to operation126 and a language is selected in response to the intended recipients'associated language preferences. In the current embodiment, eachrecipient may have associated therewith one or more languages via“language tags”. It should be noted that any number of language tags maybe associated with a user. Preferably, contact information associatedwith each recipient includes one or more actual fields containinglanguage tags specifying at least the recipient's preferred language(i.e., a “preferred language tag”) and secondary language (i.e., a“secondary language tag”). After the language is selected in operation126, routine 120 is terminated and the disambiguation software utilizesthe selected language.

If the user input does not relate to an original message (i.e., if theuser input relates to a derived message), operational control is passedto operation 124. In operation 124, the language of the original message(e.g., the message from which the current reply message is derived) isdetermined and the language of the original message is selected for useby the disambiguation software. In the current embodiment, the languageof the original message may be determined, for example, by examining thepreferred language tag associated with the user who sent the originalmessage, by examining certain encoding (e.g., ASCII, Latin, UTF-8, etc.)associated with the original message, and/or by actual detection of thelanguage in the body of the original message, among others. The actuallanguage in the body of the message may be determined, for example andwithout limitation, by 1) examining the message for a specific encodingtype that is unique to a particular language or subset of languages, 2)examining the message for special characters or encoded values that areunique to a particular language or subset of languages, 3) examiningdictionary patterns matching a particular language or subset oflanguages, and 4) examining special tags or other information in theheader of the original message. After the language is selected inoperation 124, routine 120 is terminated and the disambiguation softwareutilizes the selected language. Although not shown in FIG. 6, it shouldbe noted that an override may also be provided so that a user canmanually select the language for the text disambiguation software.

FIG. 7 employs the numeral 126A to illustrate, according to oneembodiment, a detailed schematic representation of operation 126 of FIG.6. Operational control is passed to operation 126A from operation 122. Adetermination is then made at operation 130 (FIG. 7) as to whether therecipients share a common preferred language. For example, in thecurrent embodiment, the preferred language tag of each intendedrecipient is examined and, if a predetermined percentage of the intendedrecipients share a common preferred language (e.g., 100%), operationalcontrol passes to operation 132 where that common preferred language isselected for use by the disambiguation software. Routine 120 is thenterminated and the disambiguation software utilizes the selected commonpreferred language. If the predetermined threshold is not met orexceeded (e.g., if the percentage of recipients do not share a commonpreferred language), operational control passes to operation 134.

If control passed to operation 134 (i.e., if the predetermined thresholdfor the common preferred language is not met or exceeded), adetermination is made at operation 134 as to whether the recipientsshare a common secondary language. For example, in the currentembodiment, the secondary language tag of each intended recipient isexamined, and if all (i.e., 100%) of the intended recipients share acommon secondary language, operational control passes to operation 136where that common secondary language is selected for use by thedisambiguation software. Routine 120 is then terminated and thedisambiguation software utilizes the selected common secondary language.

If the predetermined threshold is not met or exceeded (e.g., if thepercentage of recipients do not share a common secondary language),operational control passes to operation 138. In operation 138, a defaultlanguage is selected for use by the disambiguation software. Thereafter,routine 120 is terminated and the disambiguation software utilizes thedefault language.

It should be apparent to one skilled in the art that the thresholds andmeasurements may be altered and/or based on criteria other than apercentage while remaining within the scope of the present invention.For example, in the embodiment discussed above, all of the intendedrecipients must share a common preferred language for operationalcontrol to pass to operation 132, and/or all of the intended recipientsmust share a common secondary language for operational control to passto operation 136. However, it is also contemplated that operationalcontrol may pass to operation 132 or to operation 136 in cases in whichless than all the intended recipients share a common preferred languageor common secondary language. Operational control may pass to operation132 or to operation 136, for instance, when eighty-five (85) percent ofthe intended recipients share a common preferred language or a commonsecondary language.

It should further be apparent to one skilled in the art that theparticular steps discussed above to select a language in response to therecipients' associated language preferences may be altered whileremaining the scope of the present invention. For example, assume thatthe threshold levels for selecting the preferred and secondary languagesare each set at seventy-five (75) percent. Further assume that eighty(80) percent of the intended recipients preferred language tags specifythe same preferred language, while ninety (90) percent of the intendedrecipients secondary language tags specify the same secondary language.It will be appreciated by those skilled in the art that simplemodifications may be made to the above-discussed embodiment such that inthe current example the secondary language, having a greater matchpercentage, is selected over the preferred language which has a lowermatch percentage.

As a further example, assume that a user is sending a message to fiverecipients, each of whom have the primary and secondary language tags asillustrated in Table 1 assigned thereto.

TABLE 1 Recipient Language tags Secondary Primary Language LanguageRecipient 1 English French Recipient 2 English Spanish Recipient 3English Spanish Recipient 4 Spanish French Recipient 5 Spanish Russian

It will be appreciated by those skilled in the art that simplemodifications may be made to the above-discussed embodiment such that inthe current example, Spanish, which is common to four of the fiveintended recipients (as either a primary or a secondary preferredlanguage) is selected over English (common to three of the five), French(common to two of the five), and Russian (common to one of the five).

FIG. 8 employs the numeral 126B to illustrate, according to anotherembodiment, a detailed schematic representation of an alternativeoperation 126 from FIG. 6. Operational control is passed to operation126B from operation 122. A language match score is then calculated atoperation 150 for a language that is designated within any one or morethe recipients' language tags. For example, assume that a user issending an original message to five recipients, each of which have thelanguage tags as illustrated in Table 2 assigned thereto.

TABLE 2 Recipient Language tags Third Fourth Primary Secondary LanguageLanguage Language (+1) Language (+2) (+3) (+4) Recipient 1 EnglishFrench Recipient 2 German English French Spanish Recipient 3 FrenchSpanish Recipient 4 Spanish German English French Recipient 5 EnglishGerman Spanish

In the current example, a match score is calculated for a first language(e.g., English). English is the primary language for recipients 1 and 5(+1 point each), the secondary language for recipient 2 (+2 points), andthe third language for recipient 4 (+3 points). English is not specifiedfor recipient 3, therefore under the current embodiment, the maximumnumber of points is assigned (+4 points). Thus, the match score forEnglish totals 11 (i.e., 1+1+2+3+4). Operational control then passes tooperation 152 in which the match score for English is saved.

A determination is then made at operation 154 as to whether a matchscore has been calculated for each language designated within any one ormore the recipients' language tags. In the instant example, match scoreshave not yet been calculated for German, French, and Spanish. Thus,operational control branches back to operation 150.

The match score is then calculated for the next language (e.g., German).As illustrated in Table 2, German is the primary language for recipient2 (+1 point), the secondary language for recipients 4 and 5 (+2 pointseach), and is not specified for recipients 1 and 3 (+4 points each).Thus, the match score for German totals 13, which is saved in operation152. Likewise, the match scores for French (14) and Spanish (14) arecalculated and saved. After a match score is calculated for eachlanguage designated within any one or more the recipients' languagetags, operational control branches from operation 154 to operation 156.

In operation 156, a determination is made as to whether any of thecalculated match scores is equal to or less than a threshold value. Forexample, assume in the current embodiment that a threshold is set at 13.Both English (11) and German (13) have match scores that satisfy thisthreshold. Accordingly, operational control branches “YES” and thelanguage with best match score is selected in operation 160. In thecurrent example, the language having the lowest match score totalrepresents the best match. Thus, English is selected in operation 160.Now assume instead that the threshold is set at 10, none of thelanguages have match scores that satisfy this threshold. Accordingly atoperation 156, control would branch “NO” and a default language would beselected at operation 158.

It should be apparent to one skilled in the art that the number oflanguage tags assigned, the particular point value assigned to eachlanguage tag, and the manner in determining which language has the bestmatch score (e.g., the language with the lowest match score) areexemplary and may be altered while remaining within the scope of thepresent invention. Additionally, the particular steps discussed above toselect a language in response to the recipients' associated languagepreferences are exemplary and are in no way intended to limit the scopeof the present invention. Accordingly, other methods of selecting alanguage in response to the recipients' associated language preferencesmay be used while remaining within the scope of the present invention.

The invention can define any language ranking or scoring function using,for example and without limitation, 1) the recipients, their languagepreferences, and the languages of their prior sent/received messages, 2)the actual keys pressed, together with language dictionaries andassociated word frequencies, 3) the language preferences and weightingsof the user, 4) the word frequencies of the specific user (i.e. learningdictionary), 5) user input and override to the language selectionprocess, 5) other configuration and control parameters, both constantand user adjustable.

The handheld electronic device 4 may also execute a routine 22 fordetermining the context of a text entry session and for selecting, inresponse to the determined context, the language to be utilized by thedisambiguation software during that session. More specifically, FIGS. 9and 10 are flowcharts depicting a routine 200 for determining thecontext of a message being composed during a text entry session and forselecting the language to be utilized by the disambiguation softwareduring that text entry session.

As used herein, a “text entry session” broadly refers to a period oftime in which a user enters input (such as text) into, and otherwiseinterfaces with, an application in order to complete a discreteoperation within that application. For example, the composition of amessage (e.g., email, SMS, instant message, meeting invitation, etc.)may be referred to as a “text entry session”. A text entry session mayalso include, for example and without limitation, composing a document(e.g., memo, task, article, etc.), interacting with a text based userinterface (e.g., web form, graphical user interface dialog box, userprompt, etc.), and entering free-from text.

In the current embodiment, routine 200 is initiated when the user beginsto compose a message (e.g., email, SMS, instant message, meetinginvitation, etc.) on the handheld device 4. A determination is made atoperation 201 as to whether the message being drafted is an originalmessage or part of an existing thread. If an original message,operational control branches “YES” and the context of the message isselected in operation 202. The context is based, for example, on thelanguage preferences of the author (i.e., the message composer) and/orthe language preferences of the recipients.

Once the context of the message is selected, operation 200 continues (asseen in FIG. 10) such that the language(s) used by the disambiguationsoftware during the text entry session is/are selected. Morespecifically, operational control passes to operation 213. Adetermination is made in operation 213 as to whether enough of themessage's recipients have language preferences listed in theirassociated contacts and/or address book. If so, operational controlbranches “YES” and is passed to operation 216 where the current languagecontext (as selected in operation 202) and the language preferenceslisted in the contacts and/or address book of the recipients are used torank the languages available for use by the disambiguation softwareduring the text entry session. In the current embodiment, the top rankedlanguage is automatically selected for use by the disambiguationsoftware.

The selected languages may be displayed, for example, as shown in FIG.11. FIG. 11 shows an exemplary output 64 depicted on the display 60. Theoutput 64 includes a text component 68 and a number of variantcomponents 72. A variant component 72 associated with each languagedetermined to be available for use by the disambiguation software duringthe text entry session is displayed. Each variant component 72 includesa default portion 76 and a variant portion 80 for its related language.The variant components 72 may be arranged such that the highest rankedlanguage (here, English) is displayed first. Each variant component 72includes an identifier label 92 (e.g., “English”; “French”; “Spanish”)and a selection box 91. An indicator 90 notifies the user which languageis currently selected for use by the disambiguation software. As seen inFIG. 11, the default portion for the selected language (i.e., English)is displayed in the text component 68.

As discussed above, the top ranked language is automatically selectedfor use by the disambiguation software in the current embodiment.Another language, however, may be selected while remaining within thescope of the present invention. For instance, an override may beprovided so that a user can scroll to another language (e.g., French orSpanish in FIG. 11) and manually select another language to be used bythe disambiguation software. The manually selected language may be usedby the disambiguation software for the current word being typed (i.e.,and then revert back to the highest ranked language for the remainder ofthe text entry session) or may be used for the remainder of the textentry session.

Returning to operation 213, if not enough of the message's recipientshave language preferences listed in their associated contacts and/oraddress book, operational control branches “NO” and a determination ismade at operation 214 as to whether enough recipients have proprietaryfields indicating their language preferences in the contacts or addressbook. If so, operational control branches “YES” and operational controlis passed to operation 216 where the current language context (asselected in operation 202) and the language preferences listed in thecontacts and/or address book of the recipients are used to rank thelanguages available for use by the disambiguation software during thetext entry session.

If not enough recipients have proprietary fields indicating theirlanguage preferences in the contacts or address book, operationalcontrol branches “NO” and a determination is made at operation 215 as towhether prior messages to/from the recipients can be used to reliablydetermine the language preferences. If so, operational control branches“YES” and operational control is passed to operation 216 where thecurrent language context (as selected in operation 202) and the languagepreferences listed in the contacts and/or address book of the recipientsare used to rank the languages available for use by the disambiguationsoftware during the text entry session.

If prior messages to/from the recipients can not be used to reliablydetermine the language preferences, operational control branches “NO”and a determination is made at operation 217 as to whether the author(i.e., message composer) has a default language preference. If so,operational control branches “YES” and operational control is passed tooperation 218 where the language indicated by the default languagepreference is selected as the top ranked language for use by thedisambiguation software. If the author (i.e., message composer) does nothave a default language preference, operational control passes tooperation 219 and a software defined default language is selected.

Returning to FIG. 9, if it is determined at operation 201 that themessage being drafted is not an original message (e.g., the message ispart of an existing thread), operational control branches “NO” and thecontext of the message is based upon the prior messages. A determinationis made in operation 203 whether prior messages in the thread have tagsor other indicators of the language context. If so, operational controlbranches “YES” and, in operation 204, the language specified by the tagsor other indicators is selected to be used by the text disambiguationsoftware. If not, operational control passes to operation 205.

In operation 205, a determination is made whether the encoding type ofthe prior messages in the thread narrows the language context. If so,operational control branches “YES” and, in operation 206, thoselanguages that are not suggested by the encoding type are removed fromfurther consideration. Operational control is then passed to operation207. If the determination in operation 205 is that the encoding type ofthe prior messages in the thread does not narrow the language context,operational control branches “NO” and is passed to operation 207 (i.e.,operation 206 is skipped).

In operation 207, a determination is made whether special characters(e.g., characters specific to a certain language) within the priormessages in the thread narrow the language context. If so, operationalcontrol branches “YES” and, in operation 208, those languages that arenot suggested by the special characters are removed from furtherconsideration. Operational control is then passed to operation 209. Ifthe determination in operation 207 is that special characters of theprior messages in the thread do not narrow the language context (or ifthere are no special characters in the prior messages), operationalcontrol branches “NO” and is passed to operation 209 (i.e., operation208 is skipped).

In operation 209, a determination is made whether a dictionary patternmatch of prior messages in the thread narrows the language context. Ifso, operational control branches “YES” and, in operation 210, thoselanguages that are not suggested by the dictionary pattern match areremoved from further consideration. Operational control is then passedto operation 211. If the determination in operation 209 is that adictionary pattern match of the prior messages in the thread does notnarrow the language context (or if a dictionary pattern match does notexist in the prior messages), operational control branches “NO” and ispassed to operation 211 (i.e., operation 210 is skipped).

In operation 211, the remaining languages (i.e., those not removed bynarrowing steps 206, 208, and 210) are ranked. Operational control thenpasses to operation 212 in which the highest ranked language fromoperation 211 is selected for use by the text disambiguation softwareduring the text entry session.

It should be apparent that operational process 200 is exemplary and maybe altered while remaining within the scope of the present invention.For example, operations may be included such that the language ranking(and thus the selected language) may change within a single session.More specifically, a bi-lingual user may use both English and Frenchwords within a single message (i.e., within a single text entrysession). Operation 200 may be altered accordingly so the language usedby the disambiguation software is selected, for example, on aword-by-word basis.

As another example, operations may be added to operational process 200for updating the recipients' preferences and/or the composer'spreferences in response to the selected language. The operations mayinclude updating the preferences such that weighting associated witheach of at least some of the preferences of the composer are adjusted.As a further example, a manual override function may be added such thatthe manually selected language is used by the text disambiguationsoftware during the text entry session.

Additionally, it should be apparent that other operational processes maydetermine the context and select a language for different types of atext entry sessions, for example as discussed above (and withoutlimitation), composing a document (e.g., memo, task, article, etc.),interacting with a text based user interface (e.g., web form, graphicaluser interface dialog box, user prompt, etc.), and entering free-fromtext.

For example, the handheld electronic device 4 may also execute a routine22 for determining the context during composition of a document and forselecting, in response to the determined context, the language to beutilized by the disambiguation software during that text entry session.Determining the context may include gathering information associatedwith the document composition. The information may relate to thepreferences of the document composer, an application in which thedocument is being composed, and a subject of the document, among others.

As another example, the handheld electronic device 4 may also execute aroutine 22 for determining the context during an interaction between auser and a user interface executed by the electronic device and forselecting, in response to the determined context, the language to beutilized by the disambiguation software during that text entry session.Determining the context for the text entry session may include gatheringinformation associated with the interaction between the user and theuser interface. The information may relate to an application in whichthe user interface is employed and a purpose for which the userinterface is being employed, among others.

As another example, the handheld electronic device 4 may also execute aroutine 22 for determining the context during a free-form text entrysession executed by the electronic device and for selecting, in responseto the determined context, the language to be utilized by thedisambiguation software during that text entry session. Determining thecontext include gathering information associated with free-form textentry session. The information may relate to the context for a number ofpast text entry sessions, word correlations within the current free-formtext entry session, and grammar correlations within the currentfree-form text entry session, among others.

While specific embodiments of the invention have been described indetail, it will be appreciated by those skilled in the art that variousmodifications and alternatives to those details could be developed inlight of the overall teachings of the disclosure. For example, althoughnot shown in FIGS. 3 and 4, it will be appreciated by those skilled inthe art that an override may be provided so that the user can manuallyspecify the language utilized by the disambiguation software. As afurther example, a bias may be implemented such that a language isselected in accordance with user preferences. Accordingly, theparticular arrangements disclosed are meant to be illustrative only andnot limiting as to the scope of the invention which is to be given thefull breadth of the claims appended and any and all equivalents thereof.

1-27. (canceled)
 28. A method for selecting a language from a number oflanguages used by an electronic device during a text entry session, themethod comprising: determining that the text entry session is associatedwith composing a message to a plurality of recipients; examining atleast one of a number of language tags associated with each of theplurality of recipients; and automatically selecting a language for useby a text disambiguation function during the text entry session based onthe examined language tags.
 29. The method of claim 28, wherein when apredetermined percentage of the plurality of recipients share a commonlanguage tag, the selected language is a language represented by thecommon language tag.
 30. The method of claim 29, wherein the commonlanguage tag is a preferred language tag.
 31. The method of claim 28,wherein when a predetermined percentage of the plurality of recipientsdo not share a common preferred language tag but a predeterminedpercentage of the plurality of recipients share a common secondarylanguage tag, the selected language is a language represented by thecommon secondary language tag.
 32. The method of claim 28, wherein whena predetermined percentage of the plurality of recipients of the messagedo not share a common preferred language tag or a common secondarylanguage tag, the selected language is a default language.
 33. Themethod of claim 32, wherein the default language is a default languagepreference of the author of the text entry session.
 34. The method ofclaim 33, wherein when the author does not have a default language tag,the default language is a default language defined by the electronicdevice.
 35. A method for selecting a language to be used by a textdisambiguation function executed by an electronic device, the electronicdevice being operable to send messages and receive messages, the methodcomprising: determining that a message being drafted is an originalmessage to be sent to a plurality of recipients; examining language tagsassociated with each of the plurality of recipients; and automaticallyselecting a language for the original message based on the examinedlanguage tags.
 36. The method of claim 35, wherein when a predeterminedpercentage of the plurality of recipients share a common preferredlanguage tag, the selected language is a language represented by thecommon preferred language tag.
 37. The method of claim 35, wherein whena predetermined percentage of the plurality of recipients do not share acommon preferred language tag but a predetermined percentage of theplurality of recipients share a common secondary language tag, theselected language is a language represented by the common secondarylanguage tag.
 38. The method of claim 35, wherein when a predeterminedpercentage of the plurality of recipients of the message do not share acommon preferred language tag or a common secondary language tag, theselected language is a default language.
 39. The method of claim 35,wherein the selected language is a language represented by a languagetag shared by a highest percentage of the plurality of recipients. 40.An electronic device comprising: a processor; and a memory storing anumber of language tags, each language tag being associated with amessage recipient, and a plurality of routines executable by theprocessor that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor toperform operations comprising: determining that a text entry session isassociated with composing a message to a plurality of recipients,examining the number of language tags associated with the plurality ofrecipients, and automatically selecting a language for use by a textdisambiguation function during the text entry session, based on theexamined language tags.
 41. The electronic device of claim 40, whereinthe selecting operation comprises: calculating a match score for each ofa plurality of of languages represented by the plurality of languagetags; and selecting a language having a best match score.
 42. The deviceof claim 41, wherein the selecting operation further comprises:comparing the calculated match scores to a predetermined thresholdvalue, wherein the selected language satisfies the predeterminedthreshold.
 43. The device of claim 41, wherein the selecting operationfurther comprises: comparing the calculated match scores to apredetermined threshold value, wherein the selected language is adefault language when none of the number of languages satisfy thepredetermined threshold.